Talk:Battle of Kontum

Death of Vann?
It is my belief that the cross symbol by a name in a battle report indicated that they were killed in action. Adviser Vann seems to have that symbol next to his, indicating that he was killed in action. This, however, is false (according to his Wikipedia article). I am not a mainstay Wikipedia editor, so I am wondering if somebody with more experience would like to comment on whether or not it should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.180.5 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"according to his wikipedia article" lol, using wikipedia as a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.93.57 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Article is plagiarized
The entire second half of this article (everything from "giving the Saigon government troops..." onward, until the end) is taken verbatim from "The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990" by Marilyn C. Young. The passage in question can be found on page 270 (in the paperback edition, at least), about 3/4 of the way down the page.

Notes on this version of article
I have essentially replaced the stub article with one I put together after going over the MACV history of the battle, the history Col. Heslin put together for www.thebattleofkontum.com and then consulting with Jack and the senior advisers who were there (and still with us). Here are some notes on the direction I took.

1. At three paragraphs, the stub article didn't do justice to a battle that stretched over a good chunk of the Central Highlands and involved five divisions. If the PAVN had succeeded in capturing Kontum, they would have cut South Vietnam in half -- and might well have ended the war a year sooner. This is a major battle in the war and should be treated as such.

2. This battle also had a strategic importance that was never mentioned in the previous version. The US and South Vietnamese forces were just beginning to deal with how to fight a war with this mix of ARVN ground troops, US advisers and air cav, and B-52 backup. And the progress of the battle clearly mirrors the process of figuring out the most effective solution going forward. Unfortunately, the death of Vann just after the battle meant lessons learned were not fully utilized.

3. The initial stub barely mentions the fight at Tan Cahn. Yet Tan Cahn saw the virtual elimination of the entire ARVN 22nd Division. The rest of the battle at Kontum was a fight back from the brink.

4. The stub article essentially says the battle was won by the 300 B-52 sorties that took place during the two month period. This is a gross simplification of course. But moreover, it suggests a lack of respect for the ARVN, American AND North Vietnamese combatants. The PAVN understood the Americans' use of B-52 firepower implicitly, they had lived that reality for over a decade. And in this battle, they made full use of the cover of darkness and jungle on a moment to moment basis. They understood that B-52 use was not allowed in situations where there was close engagement. So they used their own strategic strengths very effectively and nearly won the fight at numerous points during the engagement.

5. None of the combatants assumed that this battle was a forgone conclusion because of the presence of B-52s. The PAVN had far more soldiers, soldiers who were battle-hardened. They had the T-54 tank, considered unstoppable by the ARVN. And the ARVN and American commanders had to deal with the fact that an entire ARVN division had just been destroyed. Kontum was considered a lost cause by many who were there until well into the second month.

I should also say that this is my first effort at writing a Wiki article and there are probably numerous mistakes, especially in terms of hitting the Wiki style. But my feedback from those who were there suggests that this piece comes close to what actually happened. TT —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimT9999 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Kontum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108084549/http://www.miafacts.org/ssc%20report/apx%202j.htm to http://www.miafacts.org/ssc%20report/apx%202j.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

World in Action report of the Siege of Kontum in 1972
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWYTipc0MS8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
- Do you have a ref to support your edit? If it's supported by the article prose, could you point that out? Thank you - the WOLF  child  11:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * viet page and sources. Fustos (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Huh? What does that even mean? Do you understand what I am asking you? Do you have a Reliable Source to support the content you added? Yes or no? If you do, then please add it per Wikipedia's sourcing policy. If you don't have a source, your edit will be removed as WP:OR. - the WOLF  child  11:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * here It mentions the reangers, airborne the B3 front VC, etc. of course you would know this (it's even in english source), but this whole issue is you trying to teach me a lesson by making it imposibble for me to edit while you nitpick everything i edit. don't waste my time Fustos (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * - I'll say this again, when adding new content, you need to attach reliable sources to that content. You can't just add it to the talk page a couple days later, after numerous reverts and multiple editors have tried to get you to engage in discussion. THAT is "wasting time". Why do you think every article on WP has an associated talk page? For this right here; discussion of editing issues. Why do you think we have an edit summary feature? Why do you think we have a sourcing policy? You can't just add whatever you want, without a source or even a explanation and just assume everyone knows what you're doing and what refs you're relying on. I'm not making this up just to "make editing difficult for you", it's all in the Policies and Guidelines of this project. You need to abide by those rules, just like everyone else. Source your content properly or it will be removed. That is the "lesson" here. If you continue to edit-war, attack other editors or otherwise disrupt the project, you will be reported and very likely Blocked from editing. Stop acting like everyone is against you. You're new, you're making mistakes. we're just trying to help you. - the WOLF  child  12:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with User: Thewolfchild Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

U.S. bias
Not a single Vietnamese publication referenced, neither North nor South Vietnamese sources. It seems to me an extraordinarily narrow description of this major battle, with a near total and unfortunate bias to U.S. actions and interpretation. 2001:8003:DC7B:A301:10A7:EBFF:1084:97AC (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add reliable Vietnamese sources. Probably best if you create an account first. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)